• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

If macroevolution is incorrect, then what replaces it? (Please read OP before commenting)

Status
Not open for further replies.

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
64,347
10,658
US
✟1,551,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Since you linked to your own post and have not made a single attempt to try and address the OP, going off on tangents, then I'm calling it like I see it.

If you want to call addressing some of your nonsensical statements as going off on tangents; should we just let the nonsense stand, to stay on topic?
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,373
Frozen North
✟344,333.00
Country
Canada
Gender
Male
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Excellent! I have this theory that my garbage man found a expired can of Campbell's Primordial Stew in my neighbor's trash; and that he traveled back in time in his Delorean, to spawn all life.

Prove me wrong.

Not how the burden of proof works.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,666.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
If you want to call addressing some of your nonsensical statements as going off on tangents; should we just let the nonsense stand, to stay on topic?

I think that you are very much projecting here.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
64,347
10,658
US
✟1,551,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
5 going on 6 pages in with no attempt to answer the OP? Sounds about par for the course.

I addressed this question early on in the thread. Nothing needs to replace a failed hypothesis. If we don't have an answer to our question; it's better to keep searching for an answer, rather than providing another wrong answer to replace the first.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,666.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
I addressed this question early on in the thread. Nothing needs to replace a failed hypothesis. If we don't have an answer to our question; it's better to keep searching for an answer, rather than providing another wrong answer to replace the first.

You didn't say that. You made a snarky comment about the Tooth Fairy.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟298,438.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Okay, I'll give you that.
I am still right though. If you say that something is wrong, you should be expected to say that another thing is right, either a claim, an assessment or a theory.

Why does saying that something is wrong mean you have to say that something else is right? If I argue that Ptolemy's astrological system was wrong, why do I have to argue that a different astrological interpretation is right? If an atheist argues that Christianity is wrong, does he have to argue that some other religion is right?

Skeptics are annoying, but they aren't logically inconsistent.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,666.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Why does saying that something is wrong mean you have to say that something else is right? If I argue that Ptolemy's astrological system was wrong, why do I have to argue that a different astrological interpretation is right? If an atheist argues that Christianity is wrong, does he have to argue that some other religion is right?

Skeptics are annoying, but they aren't logically inconsistent.

Forget it.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,666.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Right, there is no answer because your position is incorrect.

No, I've just realised that you're not even really going to make an attempt to even try and answer the OP so you might as well just leave the thread.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟298,438.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
No, I've just realised that you're not even really going to make an attempt to even try and answer the OP so you might as well just leave the thread.

No, I have explained in excruciating detail why your OP commits a logical fallacy, and you have no answer. You are unable to admit you are wrong. You just think anyone who disagrees with you ought to leave the thread. But that's not how forums work.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
64,347
10,658
US
✟1,551,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
You didn't say that. You made a snarky comment about the Tooth Fairy.

You are incorrect. I was hoping that you would have deduced your fallacy by the Tooth Fairy comment. When you failed to; I provided an explanation in Post #37.
 
Upvote 0

jacknife

Theophobic troll
Oct 22, 2014
2,046
849
✟186,524.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
I addressed this question early on in the thread. Nothing needs to replace a failed hypothesis. If we don't have an answer to our question; it's better to keep searching for an answer, rather than providing another wrong answer to replace the first.
Evolution is far from a hypothesis your asking to ignore all evidence found in the natural world for an idea that dosn't answer why we find all this evidence to begin with. If it was some small idea I could understand searching for more info but were talking something that spans multiple sciences and forms the back bone for one.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,666.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
No, I have explained in excruciating detail why your OP commits a logical fallacy, and you have no answer. You are unable to admit you are wrong. You just think anyone who disagrees with you ought to leave the thread. But that's not how forums work.

The OP was in response to a person who claim that macroevolution was wrong and has been questioned on what should replace it if it is wrong, which is a big issue since macroevolution is something of a big deal in evolutionary theory since it's the creation of species of animals. They never replied, so I made this thread in the hope that they would reply.
Clearly they haven't.

Now, I haven't committed a logical fallacy because, it is a fact in the history of science, that when a theory has been falsified and shown to be incorrect, it has been replaced. The theory of spontaneous generation being the best example off the top of my head.

All you have done is said that I'm wrong and argued semantics. You've made no attempt to answer the OP question and have just argued semantics. That's all you have done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,038
7,403
31
Wales
✟424,666.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
You are incorrect. I was hoping that you would have deduced your fallacy by the Tooth Fairy comment. When you failed to; I provided an explanation in Post #37.

No, I took it as trolling and derailing because that's all I've felt that you've tried to do in this thread. If you had just started this thread by simply going "Well, I think that nothing would replace it because I feel that nothing should replace a wrong theory", I would have asked you to explain that further, but I would have taken that as an answer.
An asinine comment about the Tooth Fairy is not an explanation. By itself, it can be seen, and was seen, as trolling.
 
Upvote 0

HARK!

שמע
Christian Forums Staff
Supervisor
Site Supporter
Oct 29, 2017
64,347
10,658
US
✟1,551,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
Private
Evolution is far from a hypothesis your asking to ignore all evidence found in the natural world for an idea that dosn't answer why we find all this evidence to begin with. If it was some small idea I could understand searching for more info but were talking something that spans multiple sciences and forms the back bone for one.

This thread addresses, more specifically, macroevolution.

You might want to read the the thread referenced in the OP, for more information on this subject.
 
Upvote 0

Astrophile

Newbie
Aug 30, 2013
2,338
1,559
77
England
✟256,526.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Widowed
You seem to be of the understanding that dismissing a theory as false, is dependent on it being replaced.

Science isn't like the purchase of a new home being contingent of the sale of the old home.

We dismiss that which is false; and if another hypothesis comes along; we test it.

If I may say so, you seem to be making the mistake of thinking that accepting or rejecting a scientific theory is an all-or-nothing matter, i.e. that a theory is entirely correct or it is useless. However, several theories (e.g. Newton's theory of gravitation, the Bohr model of the atom, and the Rayleigh-Jeans formula for black-body radiation) have turned out to be incorrect but were still able to explain observed phenomena and to make useful predictions. In the specific case of gravitation, I still use Newton's theory for calculating orbits, because it is mathematically more tractable than general relativity.

Macroevolution is in the same position; it explains the observations and makes useful predictions, so, even if it is wrong, scientists will still make use of it unless it is replaced by a better theory.
 
Upvote 0

jacknife

Theophobic troll
Oct 22, 2014
2,046
849
✟186,524.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
This thread addresses, more specifically, macroevolution.

You might want to read the the thread referenced in the OP, for more information on this subject.
I understand the OP split it up this way more for the benefit of creationists but micro and macro work with the exact same mechanism evidence for one is evidence for the other my statement stands.
 
Upvote 0

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
7,640
3,846
✟298,438.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
5 going on 6 pages in with no attempt to answer the OP?

This is the assumption of the OP:
  • If someone claims that the solution to a problem is incorrect, then they are obliged to offer a new solution to the problem.

That's false. Everyone knows it's false. The OP is based on a fallacy.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.